Individuals are rarely (not never, but rarely) the full problem. Groups of people are what cause feedback loops and cultural reinforcement like the author describes. Sometimes this is a virtuous reinforcement cycle but more often than not the well gets poisoned over time.
> "Go is often touted for its ease to write highly concurrent programs. However, it is also mind-boggling how many ways Go happily gives us developers to shoot ourselves in the foot."
In my career I've found that if languages don't allow developers to shoot themselves (and everyone else) in the foot they're labelled toy languages or at the very least "too restrictive". But the moment you're given real power someone pulls the metaphorical trigger, blows their metaphorical foot off and then starts writing blog posts about how dangerous it is.
Though a good language would point out that what the junior (or in some cases even senior) dev is holding in their hand is in fact a gun and not a gun disguised and marketed as this nice and easy to use toy, which is especially true for Go.
One must keep in mind that devs manage to implement even flawed logic that is directly reflected by the code. I'd rather not give them a non-thread safe language that provides a two letter keyword to start a concurrent thread in the same address space. Insane language design.
How is teaching your kids to invest some portion of their money "raising finance due bros and gambling addicts"? Just because modern culture has incentivized these kinds of people doesn't suddenly make investing bad. This is such a wild take.
> How is teaching your kids to invest some portion of their money
That’s not what the article says. I explicitly quoted the relevant part. It’s not “a portion of their money”, this is not money they had lying around in an envelope that grandma gave them. This father is incentivising the kids to not get what they want for their birthday and instead ask for money with which they’ll do nothing but unrealistically watch grow for a period of time. That’s not a good core memory, no one looks fondly on “that birthday I had as a kid where I got nothing but a number on an app stated growing at a snail pace”.
> doesn't suddenly make investing bad.
That’s not the argument. Nowhere in my comment does it say investing is bad.
> This is such a wild take.
Any take is wild when you blatantly misrepresent it. Don’t straw man.
Kids are 7 and 10 , this is a mini "Marshmallow Test" and they can use their money whenever they want if they find a book or toy they like while they learn how investments work.
Seems more like a "mega" Marshmallow Test. Instead of putting off a snack for 15 minutes they're giving up an entire year of birthday gifts for a reward years into the future.
I dunno, while they didn’t tell me to ask for cash, my parents basically made me invest any cash I got as gifts, plus everything I earned at summer jobs. I think that this kind of “investing by default” mindset (plus getting my own desktop computer for Christmas at age 11) extremely significantly impacted my current life in a positive way.
Also, learning to use Excel by playing fantasy stocks during the dot-com bubble, and having a Lycos homepage “Portfolio” widget just like my mom did is a fond memory for me, and zero people on Earth would call me a finance bro today.
The major difference is that in all your examples you were already getting cash. In the article, the poster is incentivising their kids to get cash instead of something else specific. From the article:
> we suggested that instead of asking for physical gifts, he ask for their equivalent in money.
For their equivalent. In other words, the kid has to decide something they want then deliberately choose to not get it so they can “invest” it and see line go up.
It would’ve been different if this had instead been a case of “grandma just gave you an envelope with cash; if you don’t have plans for it, how about investing?”. Which works on many levels, they could’ve also spent some portion of the money on something they wanted then invested the surplus, or a myriad other options.
What is the point of your comment, actually? At least GP is talking about children psychology and is totally on topic. Wanting a faster profit then getting scammed or lose money in a crash market is also part of the learning.
It's for the lolz. I laughed and upvoted, just imagining my kids someday lecturing me on crypto. Then I thought about creating a bubble for them and then saying to their faces "Annnnnd it's gone."
Consider looking at social media less and reading more history. The idea that people are recently celebrating cruelty, but did not earlier, is charmingly nostalgic but not exactly historical.
My clearest memory of that period was Al Qaeda flying planes into the twin towers in 2001 followed by the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions. I'm not sure it was a unique time of brotherly love?
It North America, it was better overall; we didn't immediately assume the other person was inhuman because they voted for the other guy. In the US, we are just so fucked.
The rest of the world, at that time? Probably not so great.
What about people celebrating burning women alive back In medieval times?
That's what people doing all the time not just now. Only that the whole world can see a few insane people doing.
Seems like the most reasonable answer would be to have days where no video was permitted, and days where it is. Then you can attend on the days where no video is permitted but the ones who like creating and uploading videos can have their chances as well.
I interviewed for an SRE position at Auth0 years ago. My interviewer told me it was all held together by duct tape and prayers. I'm glad I didn't end up taking that position.
Sure, everyone ends up having a dim perspective on what they manage usually. But this was especially noticeable as he explained to me how many incidents they'd have daily, what their on-call was like, etc. In an world full of castles built with toothpicks and elmers glue this came off like it was built with wet cardboard and chewing gum.
Not outright crippled; just strategically neglected compared to the paid variant, unless it’s effectively useless without paying. And then Vercel steps in, buys the whole thing, and Better Auth becomes „Next.js“ first, ideally only fully effective on Vercel.
I would say once a company becomes vc funded, it will have some different priorities.
Although Deno seems to be working out good so far. They are providing value to the general JS eco system. And yes there is Deno deploy, but competent sysadmin and DevOP people will have no trouble running it on their own and scaling.
Here is a few examples of PE shops and their list of portfolio companies. Please name all of the companies that fit the criteria of "the business is suffering from financial hardship or the current owner is unable to continue to run the business and cannot find a successor"
The Supreme Court is determined to give him unfettered power to do whatever he wants so I'm sure once it reaches them they'll strike down whatever the lower court does to stop him.
Eh. They have broadly ruled with the admin on staffing decisions.
I would not at all extrapolate that to unlimited regulation of economic activity; it would be something of a reversal of their known stances on regulatory authority of federal agencies. I'm not making bets either way.
Considering that they already reversed a major precedent that specifically applies to the regulatory authority of federal agencies, I don't see why we wouldn't expect them to do it again.
> Amazing how Trump gets unfettered power and Biden gets reeled in
If we look at how often the justices voted in favour of each administration in emergency applications when the government was the filer, we get Sotomayor and Jackson favouring Biden with a 77-point margin (88 to 11 percent and 77 to 0 percent, respectively), Alito favouring Trump with a 77-point margin (95 to 18%), and Kavanaugh, Barrett and Roberts with 48, 26 and 21-point margins [1].
On the whole, Trump has been successful 84% of the time against Biden's 53%. But my point is that the partisan fracture of our court--on the level of individual justices--has been happening for a while. (The fact that we have (a) Alito, who's a hack and (b) a decadelong conservative majority is more explanatory than e.g. Barrett or Roberts having gone to the dark side.)
Would you characterize the items they hand to the court as similarly extreme and unprecedented in both ways? If one side is providing milder work, then I would expect higher agreeability. Otherwise there is something fishy with both sidesing it.
Obviously it is impossible to answer this without projecting some bias. But I don't think that makes it unanswerable.
It's not unanswerable, but it is impossible to have a reasoned discussion about it even with otherwise reasonable people, sadly.
I'm not American so I try not to wade into it too much. I think Americans and everybody is entitled to a basic human right of self-determination, holding, and voting for diverse political beliefs. They have a bunch of shit to sort out and are pretty divided sadly, but so is my country and many others.
Now something that America has been known for is extraordinary renditions, extrajudicial executions, foreign "interventions", and that kind of thing. Again I don't say America is unique or even the worst at this by a long shot. Hell, France carried out a state sponsored terrorist action and murder against a civilians in a friendly democracy (New Zealand) within living memory. But America, being the biggest, most influential, and "leader of the free world" gets most of the focus.
With those disclaimers out of the way, the presidential immunity ruling did not come as any shock to those outside America and slightly removed from the propaganda war. We've seen W start questionable wars and the whole CIA renditions, Obama's love of drones and his ordering extra-judicial execution of US citizens, their destruction of Syria and Libya and Iraq, etc.
Presidential immunity was the defacto operating principle and most legal experts outside the fringe really agreed that an action like the killing of an American citizen abroad by the executive branch could not be prosecuted, despite it otherwise meeting all elements of the criminal statute for murder.
I'm no legal expert, but the presidential immunity ruling from SCOTUS as far as I could see affirmed existing practice and understanding. If anything it actually restricted presidential immunity because it explicitly limited it to official actions and created some guidelines for how courts could decide how to make that classification.
But the reaction online was literally that it made Trump a dictator and it meant he could go personally shooting opposing politicians, judges, and bureaucrats with no consequences! People who believed that of course will categorize that decision as extreme. But the reality seems to be the opposite, extreme (not as a value judgement but in terms of distance from status quo of both sides of mainstream politics) would have been to rule the other way and permit the prosecution of presidents for executive actions, because presumably then the DOJ would have begun cases against Obama, W, as well for their criminal and now prosecutable actions in office.
> Obama's love of drones and his ordering extra-judicial execution of US citizens, their destruction of Syria and Libya and Iraq, etc.
Good thing that you prefaced with that you're not an American and you try not to wade into it too much. Your have a good excuse for ignorance of drone strikes and are a great example of how manufactured consent works. "Obama" + "drones" eventually leads to "both sides" enlightened centrism without understanding policy nuances. Just one such example - https://www.jstor.org/stable/23526906?seq=8.
> It's not unanswerable, but it is impossible to have a reasoned discussion about it even with otherwise reasonable people, sadly.
> Good thing that you prefaced with that you're not an American and you try not to wade into it too much. Your have a good excuse for ignorance of drone strikes and are a great example of how manufactured consent works. "Obama" + "drones" eventually leads to "both sides" enlightened centrism without understanding policy nuances. Just one such example - https://www.jstor.org/stable/23526906?seq=8.
Not sure what you're getting at here or how it addresses the substance of my point. Seems like a pathetic attempt to strawman by attempting to nitpick a tiny irrelevant aspect of my comment, and even that failed badly for you because I never claimed other sides did not also use drones or that both sides were as good or bad as one another. Come on, pull yourself together, if you can't cope with talking about this like a normal person, just refrain from commenting.
Do you deny that Obama ordered extrajudicial execution of a US citizen and relied on and was widely believed to be shielded by presidential immunity for that action? Or that it was not a controversial mainstream legal opinion before Trump that presidents operated the executive branch under presidential immunity?
> Obama's love of drones and his ordering extra-judicial execution of US citizens
Yes, so many Americans forget about this or gloss over it. Even the fact you’re getting downvoted show how biased most folks are.
Trump has in many ways done less than previous administrations. He just makes it very public and brash.
> Presidential immunity was the defacto operating principle and most legal experts outside the fringe really agreed that an action like the killing of an American citizen abroad by the executive branch could not be prosecuted, despite it otherwise meeting all elements of the criminal statute for murder.
Which leaves me with mixed feelings. The idea that the President basically gets to do whatever he wants as long as congress won’t impeach him is scary for the rule of law. However on the other hand, it does allow the President the power to do things that may need doing.
It’s been that way since Thomas Jefferson sent the marines to fight Barbary wars without congresses approval. Perhaps earlier.
> Trump has in many ways done less than previous administrations. He just makes it very public and brash.
Maybe. My point wasn't that one was better or worse, and I did try to add some "balance" to that by including both W and O examples of presidential immunity :) Presidential immunity I just used as one (of many) issues where there are basically irreconcilable differences between people who are otherwise quite intelligent, sane, rational.
There are equivalents going the other way too where conservatives think something is bad or wrong or extreme but it really isn't. I chose the example of this particular disconnect because of the context, it would not have worked going the other way. The assertion was that Trump / Trump cases are more extreme. And furthermore that may even be true, I do nothing to disprove that with my example, I just try to show show why as I see it, it is extremely difficult to judge something like that objectively or even for people to discuss it calmly and rationally.
> Which leaves me with mixed feelings. The idea that the President basically gets to do whatever he wants as long as congress won’t impeach him is scary for the rule of law.
All systems are flawed in some ways, but this seemed to make sense to me. Prosecutions are brought to courts by the executive branch, so having the executive prosecute itself has a fundamental problem. Having executive overseen by the legislature at least avoids that particular catch. Executive holds power to physically enforce anything of course so that's always a problem, but at least it's not hiding away behind "national security" or "prosecutorial discretion" or "ongoing investigation" or "lost the evidence", rather it makes the issue public and forces the executive to openly defy the representatives of the people and the states, and the people can then decide their next course of action much better informed. Which is about as best you can hope for I think, it's the people who are really the final arbiters of all this, so if they're kept informed then that's the best thing.
Having the executive prosecute itself in some ways could be worse than nothing because it kind of delegitimizes the congressional impeachment process. Let's say if Trump colluded with Putin to hack the election and took power, then his DOJ prosecuted and carefully and secretly sabotaged the trial and he was found innocent in court, then congress came along and tried to impeach for the same crime and convicted him, where would that leave things? The executive and judicial branches found him not guilty, so it could appear that congress is defying the other two branches.
That's all my own idle musings though, and way above my pay grade!
> Maybe. My point wasn't that one was better or worse, and I did try to add some "balance" to that by including both W and O examples of presidential immunity :)
For sure, president's from both major parties in the US have done those things. My point was that by some standards Trump hasn't been worse (or better) but different.
If you step back and consider just the actions that violate the US constitution, then Clinton, Bush Jr, Obama, Trump, Biden have all done it. Their parties justified it at the time, but nonetheless it grows the scope of the presidential power each time.
> All systems are flawed in some ways, but this seemed to make sense to me. Prosecutions are brought to courts by the executive branch, so having the executive prosecute itself has a fundamental problem.
Good point, though without congress stepping up and keeping the president in check it means a president can accomplish a lot. Good or bad depends on someone's perspective.
Hopefully that's a current cultural issue which could change if / when folks realize that that's not a good thing. For example congress members start pushing back on executive power.
> Would you characterize the items they hand to the court as similarly extreme in both ways?
It's really difficult to answer this separate from one's biases.
I'd also note that Trump, then Biden, then Trump again escalated the use of the shadow docket way beyond historical norms [1]. This was a deliberate choice by both Presidents.
> there is something fishy with both sidesing it
Didn't mean to both sides this, at least not at the level of the Court. The Court has had a conservative majority for a decade; one could argue Jackson and Sotomayor are balancing the court by leaning against its centre of pressure. But it's not unexpected for the Court to be a bit more deferential towards a Republican President. We haven't been appointing and confirming neutral arbiters for a while.
> I'd also note that Trump, then Biden, then Trump again escalated the use of the shadow docket way beyond historical norms [1]
The President does not choose to use the shadow docket. The use of the shadow docket is controlled by the court justices, who (as you pointed out) have been a conservative majority for a decade.
You are correct that the use of the shadow docket increased under Trump and then Biden, but this is consistent with the (somewhat obvious) explanation that the conservative justices began to use this tool as a partisan weapon for Trump and the GOP and then later against Biden's policies.
reply